3 ms·

It's hard to tell if Ezra is willfully misinterpreting the essay or just didn't get it. Most concerning are: 1) In the entire long-winded complaint, there isn'

by xiaoma 11y ago

It's hard to tell if Ezra is willfully misinterpreting the essay or just didn't get it. Most concerning are: 1) In the entire long-winded complaint, there isn't even a mention of the primary thrust of PG's essay—while some income inequality is caused by rent-seeking and bad behavior, some is also caused by productivity inequality. Productivity is more unevenly distributed than ever, and the trend will likely become more extreme as technology advances. 2) Intentionally confusing the definitions of "start-up" and "small business". Despite having acknowledged the that the meaning of the term was an issue, he still plowed forward and sited "start-up" statistics that were counting all businesses, primarily small businesses.

cromwellian 11y ago
It's precisely because of the latter issue of productivity that the overall tone/thrust of PG's essay is wrong. If productivity increases are inevitable and will put most humans out of work, or devalue their labor, then returns to capital will increase even more, making the entire system unstable, and practically begging for redistribution. We can't have a society for very long where a few unicorn software and robot companies run everything with AI and bots, and most people displaced. It's not good for everyone, not even the hyper rich owners of those unicorns. There's a certain amount of wealth and income where the marginal utility of more comes with a global detriment to everyone, even you.
- xiaoma 11y ago
  Nothing in this comment shows anything in the essay that was "wrong". Since market demand is created by people wanting things, it's overwhelmingly unlikely that productivity increases "will put most humans out of work". If they keep doing the same labor, then yes it will be devalued, just as chopping down trees or sewing is valued less in first world economies in 2015 than it was in 1815. In your hypothetical example where software and robot companies run everything with AI there would be richer people than ever before, but poverty would also be nearly eliminated. Is that worse than a poorer but more equal world? If so, how?

by xiaoma 11y ago

cromwellian 11y ago

It's precisely because of the latter issue of productivity that the overall tone/thrust of PG's essay is wrong. If productivity increases are inevitable and will put most humans out of work, or devalue their labor, then returns to capital will increase even more, making the entire system unstable, and practically begging for redistribution. We can't have a society for very long where a few unicorn software and robot companies run everything with AI and bots, and most people displaced. It's not good for everyone, not even the hyper rich owners of those unicorns. There's a certain amount of wealth and income where the marginal utility of more comes with a global detriment to everyone, even you.

xiaoma 11y ago
Nothing in this comment shows anything in the essay that was "wrong". Since market demand is created by people wanting things, it's overwhelmingly unlikely that productivity increases "will put most humans out of work". If they keep doing the same labor, then yes it will be devalued, just as chopping down trees or sewing is valued less in first world economies in 2015 than it was in 1815. In your hypothetical example where software and robot companies run everything with AI there would be richer people than ever before, but poverty would also be nearly eliminated. Is that worse than a poorer but more equal world? If so, how?